Protecting the Patient, Not the Clinic

Every once in a while, to get some good chuckles, I check in with LifeNews.com. It’s a hoot.

In a recent edition, their feature story was about how a Planned Parenthood clinic supposedly called an ambulance and asked them to turn off their sirens and lights before they arrived. The article suggested that the clinic did not want anyone to know that they had “botched another abortion.”

For the record, abortion is actually one of the safest medical procedures performed in the United States. Having said that, it is surgery and some women can be injured, have a complication or even die.

The first thing that strikes me as funny about this article, however, is it suggests that the anti-abortion movement actually cares about the safety of abortion. Indeed, that is one of their latest arguments – that legal abortion is not safe (and illegal abortion was safer?). The fact is that the antis absolutely love it when a woman is injured – or even killed – at an abortion clinic because it gives them more ammunition – facts be damned.

But back to the sirens and lights.

Let’s assume that the clinic actually did ask the ambulance workers to turn off everything. Do you know why they probably asked? It’s because it would have alerted the anti-abortion activists outside the clinic and – we’ve seen it in the past – they would have started taking pictures of the patient being carted out on a gurney. They don’t care about the privacy of the patient. Indeed, in many cases those pictures wind up on some sick website. Of course, if they can identify the patient they probably get a gold star from their head poo-bah. They’ll do anything to try to prove their point.

So, if an abortion clinic asks the emergency personnel to try to be as private as possible, they are protecting the patient, not themselves. The situation is already a bad one, the patient needs emergency care and the clinic workers don’t want to exacerbate an already delicate situation by giving absolute strangers the opportunity to harass and/or reveal the woman who needs help.

Thanks LifeNews.com for the good material!

Rate this:

Share what you read here:

Like this:

Related

22 Responses to “Protecting the Patient, Not the Clinic”

The so-called “pro-lifers” ought to pay more attention to the babies who kill their mothers. Eclampsia killed the friend of a colleague of mine– a nurse, no less. She was alone at home for fifteen minutes. That was all the time it took for the fetus to send her into a hypertensive overload. If somebody’d been around, she might have been saved. If she’d had an abortion, she definitely would have lived. The little unborn murderer died killing her. God has a sense of humor, and it’s not pretty…

My problem with that, John, is that I just don’t think that performing an abortion on an eight week fetus is “killing a baby.” Now, when we get to 16, 17 weeks and up it’s a different story. And in those cases I’m on the record as saying that abortion is “killing”.

Let’s just call them life forms. What kind of life form? Depends of how old. Fetus is best when talking abortion. I don’t believe anyone calls King Tut’s mummy a human being, but by your logic, we should. Same goes at the other end of the process. I’ll use human being between viability and death.

Aw bull, David. You don’t believe this at all. Otherwise you’d be out there raising hell with those states that permit killers to dispatch twenty month and up preborns, and I think that’s all of them. Or you’d be over there in Englewood, N.J. where hundreds of them are murdered every year.

Not bull. Viability is not 20 months. It may be possible to use massive medical intervention down to 20 mos but for me that does not count. I’ll stay with the original Roe v Wade two trimesters. If massive medical intervention is all that is needed to set a cutoff, then when cloning (when, not if) humans becomes possible, you’ll have to be OK it. BTW, I just read that humans share 50% of their DNA with bananas. That’s the same percentage as sperm. Since you clowns don’t want sperm killed, I suppose you shouldn’t eat bananas (or anything else that we share more than 50%.

You’re right about people always seeking to kill others to solve their own problems, Pat, but back in the days when slaughtering the young was illegal, women were safer. Killers had to be a heck of a lot more careful then than they do nowadays.

So called “pro-lifers” do NOT want any term used other than “human,” in order to shore up their propaganda campaign. They cannot succeed in their attempt to control females if they have to admit that a fetus only represents human potential– the resulting child could grow up to be another Einstein, but more likely would become the next Adam Lanza. If they admitted to that, they would consequently have to face up to their responsibility to seeing that every fetus they want to “rescue” (another of their self-serving terms) becomes a real human being– and that means providing for it to age of majority.

I missed this but up above David comes up with an original! It’s the first time I’ve ever heard young people called life forms. Blobs of tissue, “fetuses,” growths, unreal people, killers, attackers, products of conception, and so on, but never life forms. Originality is rare in this forty-three year old argument. Congratulations David.

It’s very important for so-called “pro-lifers” to frame the cystoblast/embryo/fetus as “human.” They’ve been quite successful at it, too. But they don’t do it with the goal of nurturing children to adulthood; they do it only to advance their self-image as “rescuers.”

If they had to admit that true humanity is achieved rather than conferred (e.g., the difference between Ted Bundy and Steven Hawking), then they would have to accept their responsibility for making a fetus’ life human after parturition. They are incapable of confronting that responsibility.

What the REAL “pro-life” side– the “pro-choice” group– has to do is establish that the only person who can confer full humanity on a fetus is the woman who is pregnant with it. Absent that, the fetus should be referred to not as a life form, but as a humanoid life form.

I recommend this because it will force the so-called pro-lifers into the uncomfortable (if not vaguely sinister) role of claiming to “rescue” humanoid life forms. “Invasion of the Body Snatchers,” anyone?

And of course it would focus some very much needed attention on what it takes to make a life truly human.